He didn't say it was just an opinion. He put it out there as a suposed fact.Benzo, how does one actually "prove" an opinion?
We all know what opinions are like.
Farenheit 9/11
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Wherer do you live?
And are you reading the Fantasy Island Daily News?
Almost nine million people are unemployed. Many millions more are underemployed, and most of all, under-paid. Millions more lack health insurance. States are cutting basic public services everywhere, while the taxes (property and sales, mainly) to pay for those that remain are rising.
And the gates of opportunity--for instance, to attend college--are closing on millions more.
George Bush did not entirely create this problem. The bubble and the bust of high technology, the obsession with a strong dollar, the debt build-up of American households--these existed before we got George Bush. The late 1990s were a moment of prosperity and that rarest of economic
achievements--full employment. But the boom was based on dreams, illusions, and mortgages.
These set the stage for a slump that began in late 2000, from which we have not recovered and will not recover soon.
But Bush has done nothing to make our economic problem better and much to make it worse. We have lost around 2.6 million jobs since he took office, and about 650,000 just since the 2002 election. In the face of this, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts went, notoriously, to the very wealthy,
whose spending is little affected. Many middle class Americans will get hit by rising property and sales taxes--at the state and local level. And meanwhile, Bush is bent on eroding pay and working conditions, with the most recent outrage being the assault on fair labor standards affecting
overtime. As for the minimum wage? Forget about it.
In the near term, it is true that new tax cuts and more military spending may bring another false dawn. The second quarter GDP growth of 3.1 percent was a sign of this. Meanwhile Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is doing his best to keep the housing bubble aloft. Greenspan knows about blowing bubbles, but not even he can forever prevent them from popping. Short-term fiscal expansion and continued low interest rates may prevent an early renewal of recession.
They will not, however, bring us back to full employment.
With regard to the environment, for three years, the President has found ways to bypass restrictions on oil and gas drilling, mining, logging and coal-fired power eneration.
Within days of the elections, the Administration stepped up
what critics view as an all-out assault on the environment with a series of pronouncements: that snowmobiles could operate in Yellowstone National Park, oil drilling could expand in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the National Marine Fisheries Service would ease salmon
protections in the Pacific Northwest, and Washington would soften rules on logging and energy conservation.
God help us!
Almost nine million people are unemployed. Many millions more are underemployed, and most of all, under-paid. Millions more lack health insurance. States are cutting basic public services everywhere, while the taxes (property and sales, mainly) to pay for those that remain are rising.
And the gates of opportunity--for instance, to attend college--are closing on millions more.
George Bush did not entirely create this problem. The bubble and the bust of high technology, the obsession with a strong dollar, the debt build-up of American households--these existed before we got George Bush. The late 1990s were a moment of prosperity and that rarest of economic
achievements--full employment. But the boom was based on dreams, illusions, and mortgages.
These set the stage for a slump that began in late 2000, from which we have not recovered and will not recover soon.
But Bush has done nothing to make our economic problem better and much to make it worse. We have lost around 2.6 million jobs since he took office, and about 650,000 just since the 2002 election. In the face of this, the bulk of the Bush tax cuts went, notoriously, to the very wealthy,
whose spending is little affected. Many middle class Americans will get hit by rising property and sales taxes--at the state and local level. And meanwhile, Bush is bent on eroding pay and working conditions, with the most recent outrage being the assault on fair labor standards affecting
overtime. As for the minimum wage? Forget about it.
In the near term, it is true that new tax cuts and more military spending may bring another false dawn. The second quarter GDP growth of 3.1 percent was a sign of this. Meanwhile Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is doing his best to keep the housing bubble aloft. Greenspan knows about blowing bubbles, but not even he can forever prevent them from popping. Short-term fiscal expansion and continued low interest rates may prevent an early renewal of recession.
They will not, however, bring us back to full employment.
With regard to the environment, for three years, the President has found ways to bypass restrictions on oil and gas drilling, mining, logging and coal-fired power eneration.
Within days of the elections, the Administration stepped up
what critics view as an all-out assault on the environment with a series of pronouncements: that snowmobiles could operate in Yellowstone National Park, oil drilling could expand in Padre Island National Seashore in Texas, the National Marine Fisheries Service would ease salmon
protections in the Pacific Northwest, and Washington would soften rules on logging and energy conservation.
God help us!
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
It's fun reading all this.
First, Dana once again amazes me. I hope you folks get to know her. She's a great athlete, greate person, complex individual, bright, diplomatic, etc., etc.
She's the film person. Her assessment of it all is better than any I could ever hope to give.
I had a long and interesting dialogue with an unabashedly liberal friend of mine who went to see the film and loved it. She said she laughed, cried, and was moved.
Then she started to criticize me for not wanting to see the film. "I will see the film," I told her, "but for free - whenever that can happen."
Michael Moore does not hide the fact that he wants to change an election. That's fine; it's a clever way to do it. Hollywood has flexed its muscle before (Ronald Regan, Arnold, Barbara Streisand, etc., etc.). But I told her that I cannot vote with my nickel.
Michael is still stinging from the booing he got during an award cerremony when he shouted "Shame on you, Bush!" just before our troops were about to go in harm's way. Pretty controversial, no matter how you want to spin it. Michael wants receipts at the box office to be vindication. And he wants a liberal in the White House. It's his right as a citizen.
I am disappointed though that Michael chose intentionally to mislead the public with numerous situations of ommitted facts. A classic example is the legislator he attempts to ridicule by having him sign up his son to go to Iraq. A later interview on NBC has that very legislator telling what he told Moore (his nephew was in fact over there) and got conveniently cut from the film. I don't know about journalism; I am a scientist. In science, that kind of B.S. spells the end of your career - period.
The connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bush/Cheney group should not be surprising. Where do you think Osama got all his money from? Oil money is what he used to pay the Taliban to allow him to train terrorists in Afghanistan. This was known by everyone. The Bin Ladens are not happy that this psychopath soiled their family name. But bad actors with a name are no reason why for instance I shouldn't be proud that my grandfather's name was McCarthy. I gave that name as a middle name to my second son. McCarthyism means something heinous in our culture. But William McCarthy, my great grandfather, fought for the Union army as part of the Irish brigade. He was 14 years old at the time. Later, he protected settlers on the western frontier. Somebody please tell me why I should be ashamed of my McCarthy heritage.
Oil is money. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The Clinton team beat George HW Bush with this theme - It's the economy, stupid. We should not be surprised that money flows where there is oil. We should not be ashamed that our middle class makes a living in an energy-dependent economy that churns a LOT of money.
We SHOULD do something about that though. We can vote with our dollars next time we purchase a vehicle.
Anyway, back to my liberal friend. I told her I understood why she saw the film. I explained to her why I wanted to know more about the practice of beheadings in the Islamic fascist culture. I told her I wanted to bury myself in the atrocity so that I could steel my will. I told her how much crap I took online for discussing it. I told her that I in turn understood why she was so moved by scenes in the last half of the Moore film. I told her I understood why she wanted to steel her liberal will. I explained that it was probably a lot like how I felt when 17 with long hair, and an anti-Nixon bumper sticker. Can you say target?
But...no vote with my nickel for Michael. I will see the film when it is free. I've seen bits and pieces and parts for free. I've seen many reviews for free. I've seen interviews of Michael Moore for free. I will eventually watch his whole movie - for free.
I will not be accused of ignorance. But I will criticize Michael for not having done a better job. Shame on you, Michael. You might actually have succeeded with your film (as a documentary) if you just stuck to the truth and a reasonable filtering of the facts. False implications make your work fiction.
But entertainment? Obviously the paying customers are happy.
- Bill
First, Dana once again amazes me. I hope you folks get to know her. She's a great athlete, greate person, complex individual, bright, diplomatic, etc., etc.
She's the film person. Her assessment of it all is better than any I could ever hope to give.
I had a long and interesting dialogue with an unabashedly liberal friend of mine who went to see the film and loved it. She said she laughed, cried, and was moved.
Then she started to criticize me for not wanting to see the film. "I will see the film," I told her, "but for free - whenever that can happen."
Michael Moore does not hide the fact that he wants to change an election. That's fine; it's a clever way to do it. Hollywood has flexed its muscle before (Ronald Regan, Arnold, Barbara Streisand, etc., etc.). But I told her that I cannot vote with my nickel.
Michael is still stinging from the booing he got during an award cerremony when he shouted "Shame on you, Bush!" just before our troops were about to go in harm's way. Pretty controversial, no matter how you want to spin it. Michael wants receipts at the box office to be vindication. And he wants a liberal in the White House. It's his right as a citizen.
I am disappointed though that Michael chose intentionally to mislead the public with numerous situations of ommitted facts. A classic example is the legislator he attempts to ridicule by having him sign up his son to go to Iraq. A later interview on NBC has that very legislator telling what he told Moore (his nephew was in fact over there) and got conveniently cut from the film. I don't know about journalism; I am a scientist. In science, that kind of B.S. spells the end of your career - period.
The connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bush/Cheney group should not be surprising. Where do you think Osama got all his money from? Oil money is what he used to pay the Taliban to allow him to train terrorists in Afghanistan. This was known by everyone. The Bin Ladens are not happy that this psychopath soiled their family name. But bad actors with a name are no reason why for instance I shouldn't be proud that my grandfather's name was McCarthy. I gave that name as a middle name to my second son. McCarthyism means something heinous in our culture. But William McCarthy, my great grandfather, fought for the Union army as part of the Irish brigade. He was 14 years old at the time. Later, he protected settlers on the western frontier. Somebody please tell me why I should be ashamed of my McCarthy heritage.
Oil is money. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. The Clinton team beat George HW Bush with this theme - It's the economy, stupid. We should not be surprised that money flows where there is oil. We should not be ashamed that our middle class makes a living in an energy-dependent economy that churns a LOT of money.
We SHOULD do something about that though. We can vote with our dollars next time we purchase a vehicle.
Anyway, back to my liberal friend. I told her I understood why she saw the film. I explained to her why I wanted to know more about the practice of beheadings in the Islamic fascist culture. I told her I wanted to bury myself in the atrocity so that I could steel my will. I told her how much crap I took online for discussing it. I told her that I in turn understood why she was so moved by scenes in the last half of the Moore film. I told her I understood why she wanted to steel her liberal will. I explained that it was probably a lot like how I felt when 17 with long hair, and an anti-Nixon bumper sticker. Can you say target?
But...no vote with my nickel for Michael. I will see the film when it is free. I've seen bits and pieces and parts for free. I've seen many reviews for free. I've seen interviews of Michael Moore for free. I will eventually watch his whole movie - for free.
I will not be accused of ignorance. But I will criticize Michael for not having done a better job. Shame on you, Michael. You might actually have succeeded with your film (as a documentary) if you just stuck to the truth and a reasonable filtering of the facts. False implications make your work fiction.
But entertainment? Obviously the paying customers are happy.
- Bill
Moore has made a king's fortune railing against the hypocrisy he epitomizes. Moore has proven himself over and over to be the most shamelessly dishonest -- if crudely effective -- propagandist since Joseph Goebbels and Nazi documentarian Leni Riefenstahl. Anyone who cares to turn a careful eye on Moore's use of doctored film footage, manipulated facts, and spliced speeches to tamper with the truth can easily see that he's an ultra-left-wing propagandist.
Moore pulls off a "man of the people" image completely at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite.
Moore is a self-described son of poor factory workers from Flint, Michigan but has upper-middle-class origins which are anything but.
Moore shows the greatest disdain for that which he actually is: "a very rich, pasty white American male"
Warner Brothers, the distributor of Moore's first film, Roger & Me, was forced to pay legal damages to a man portrayed by Moore in a false light.
Moore's Oscar-winning anti-gun-rights documentary, Bowling for Columbine, has been called "as manipulative as totalitarian propaganda".
In Bowling for Columbine, Moore made Charlton Heston -- once a leader of the civil rights movement, a personal friend of Martin Luther King, and a regular guest speaker for the Congress of Racial Equality -- come across as a gun-crazy racist, all by distorting the evidence and "creative" editing.
Moore hasn't fared to well as a psychic either... such as his high-profile predictions in 2002 declarating that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was about to have "a change of heart".
Moore made hateful and racist (anti-white) remarks while on a speaking tour in England just after 9/11/01.
Moore was evidently surprised during his grandstanding at the Academy Awards -- when he was loudly booed.
Moore bends the truth to fit his predetermined thesis, creating a false impression for a wide audience that takes in his message.
Moore's career and public persona fit the textbooks definition of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, pervading his works with a truly pathological combination of overwhelming egotism and self-loathing.
And from a friend who went to see the latest Moore left-wing propaganda...
The theatre was 1/2-2/3 empty. There was a wide array of ages, races, etc. When the movie was over, people were upset, but not because of the movie's truth, but because of the movie's omissions, half-truths and LIES. A large group gathered outside the theatre, according to the person who told me about it, and there were varied comments that ranged from "disgusting" to "illegal". Not illegal as in treason, but illegal as in slanderous. My response to my friend was that I'd warned her about Moore in advance... but she had to see the movie and juxtapose it against her own research to understand.
IMNSHO, Moore can make any film he wishes and label it "fiction". HOWEVER, if he labels it a "documentary" and has distorted the facts into propaganda and slander, then he should be, at the very least, sued for every dime he and the movie studio are worth. At that point, there should be no qualms about shutting down a modern flim-flam man and his corporate sponsors. If he wants to make an "op-ed" piece, fine... but don't call it truth when it can be proven to be one big fat lie...
Moore pulls off a "man of the people" image completely at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite.
Moore is a self-described son of poor factory workers from Flint, Michigan but has upper-middle-class origins which are anything but.
Moore shows the greatest disdain for that which he actually is: "a very rich, pasty white American male"
Warner Brothers, the distributor of Moore's first film, Roger & Me, was forced to pay legal damages to a man portrayed by Moore in a false light.
Moore's Oscar-winning anti-gun-rights documentary, Bowling for Columbine, has been called "as manipulative as totalitarian propaganda".
In Bowling for Columbine, Moore made Charlton Heston -- once a leader of the civil rights movement, a personal friend of Martin Luther King, and a regular guest speaker for the Congress of Racial Equality -- come across as a gun-crazy racist, all by distorting the evidence and "creative" editing.
Moore hasn't fared to well as a psychic either... such as his high-profile predictions in 2002 declarating that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was about to have "a change of heart".
Moore made hateful and racist (anti-white) remarks while on a speaking tour in England just after 9/11/01.
Moore was evidently surprised during his grandstanding at the Academy Awards -- when he was loudly booed.
Moore bends the truth to fit his predetermined thesis, creating a false impression for a wide audience that takes in his message.
Moore's career and public persona fit the textbooks definition of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder, pervading his works with a truly pathological combination of overwhelming egotism and self-loathing.
And from a friend who went to see the latest Moore left-wing propaganda...
The theatre was 1/2-2/3 empty. There was a wide array of ages, races, etc. When the movie was over, people were upset, but not because of the movie's truth, but because of the movie's omissions, half-truths and LIES. A large group gathered outside the theatre, according to the person who told me about it, and there were varied comments that ranged from "disgusting" to "illegal". Not illegal as in treason, but illegal as in slanderous. My response to my friend was that I'd warned her about Moore in advance... but she had to see the movie and juxtapose it against her own research to understand.
IMNSHO, Moore can make any film he wishes and label it "fiction". HOWEVER, if he labels it a "documentary" and has distorted the facts into propaganda and slander, then he should be, at the very least, sued for every dime he and the movie studio are worth. At that point, there should be no qualms about shutting down a modern flim-flam man and his corporate sponsors. If he wants to make an "op-ed" piece, fine... but don't call it truth when it can be proven to be one big fat lie...
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
It's not like science, nor is it supposed to be. Michael Moore is a comedian, that's what he is. The whole "sign your sons up" thing is just silly and was meant to be. Just for your edification, there isn't one legislator he asks, there's several.Bill Glasheen wrote: A classic example is the legislator he attempts to ridicule by having him sign up his son to go to Iraq. A later interview on NBC has that very legislator telling what he told Moore (his nephew was in fact over there) and got conveniently cut from the film. I don't know about journalism; I am a scientist. In science, that kind of B.S. spells the end of your career - period.
The part where he drives around in an ice cream truck reading the patriot act over the loudspeaker isn't supposed to be damning evidence against Bush, it's just supposed to be funny.
They both have a point behind them (disproportionate numbers of the poor put their lives on the line for the country and the fact that the patriot act was rushed into law with almost nobody even knowing what it said) but it's silly to condemn the movie for those things which are obviously just comedy bits.
I don't think it was known by everyone. I knew some of it, but the movie showed me more. The conflict of interest with the Saudis and the extent to which the Bush family and Cheney directly benefit financially from going to war is eye-opening.The connection between the Bin Laden family and the Bush/Cheney group should not be surprising. Where do you think Osama got all his money from? Oil money is what he used to pay the Taliban to allow him to train terrorists in Afghanistan. This was known by everyone.
There are videos of Osama at a Bin Ladden family wedding 6 months prior to 9-11. Maybe they're not happy about it, but they obviously don't care very much if he's still welcome at family gatherings. He's not exactly persona non grata.The Bin Ladens are not happy that this psychopath soiled their family name.
Nobody ever said that anyone named Bin Laden should be ashamed of themselves. But if, say, your son was Osama Bin Laden, and you attended his son's wedding with him, and let him in on a $30 million share of your family fortune, then yeah, I think maybe you have something to be ashamed of.Somebody please tell me why I should be ashamed of my McCarthy heritage.
None of this has anything to do witht he veracity of anything in Fahrenheit 9-11.Panther wrote: Moore pulls off a "man of the people" image completely at odds with his lifestyle as a fabulously wealthy Manhattanite.
Moore is a self-described son of poor factory workers from Flint, Michigan but has upper-middle-class origins which are anything but.
Moore shows the greatest disdain for that which he actually is: "a very rich, pasty white American male"
But for what it's worth, yes, he's wealthy now. But he sold his home to produce his first film. That worked out well, and he's continued to be succesful.
He father was a worker at an auto-plant. They weren't poor, but it is true that he is the son of a factory worker from Flint, Michigan.
If you want to make fun of him for being pasty that's fine but it seems a bit childish.
Okay. Well I'm going to call it a "pineapple upside down cake" so there you have it. Did you even see the movie? It wasn't half as much about gun rights as it was about the way the media douses us in fear. In fact, he points out that plenty of places with as many or more guns has less crime.Moore's Oscar-winning anti-gun-rights documentary, Bowling for Columbine, has been called "as manipulative as totalitarian propaganda".
True enough.In Bowling for Columbine, Moore made Charlton Heston ... come across as a gun-crazy racist, all by distorting the evidence and "creative" editing.
So he's a lousy psychic, what's that got to do with any of his movies?Moore hasn't fared to well as a psychic either... such as his high-profile predictions in 2002 declarating that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il was about to have "a change of heart".
Yes, he said some purportedly racist things. I don't know precisely what he said, however. Note also that he is a comedian. Chris Rock says racist things too. Not knowing what Moore said and in what context I can't comment.Moore made hateful and racist (anti-white) remarks while on a speaking tour in England just after 9/11/01.
I don't know if I've evere heard, read or seen anything by someone with an overt axe to grind that wan't full of distortion. But the fact is that his films are clearly and obviously entertainment as a vehicle for making a political statement. That's a little better than if he pretended to be making a completely strait-laced and serious documentary and did the same kind of editing.Moore bends the truth to fit his predetermined thesis, creating a false impression for a wide audience that takes in his message.
[/quote]Moore can make any film he wishes and label it "fiction". HOWEVER, if he labels it a "documentary" and has distorted the facts into propaganda and slander, then he should be, at the very least, sued for every dime he and the movie studio are worth. ... If he wants to make an "op-ed" piece, fine... but don't call it truth when it can be proven to be one big fat lie...
Well then you'll be happy to know that he does publicaly call it an op-ed piece with the intention of helping to get Bush out.
If you can prove that the whole thing is one big fat lie please do, I'm all ears. So far I haven't seen anyone do that. As a matter of fact, Moore paid quite a lot of fact-checkers and so forth to make sure there weren't errors, so I'd be pretty shocked if you could find anything establishes the movie as a big fat lie.
WHAT evah
'Fahrenheit' can be nitpicked and second-guessed, but it can't be ignored... this film is a blockbuster landmark in American political filmmaking that demands to be seen.
Without a doubt it is Michael's cheekiest, gutsiest, most hilarious assault yet on the halls of the rich and richer. Go see it!!!!!!!!
Without a doubt it is Michael's cheekiest, gutsiest, most hilarious assault yet on the halls of the rich and richer. Go see it!!!!!!!!
-
Mark Weitz
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
I'm sure Michael has made errors in his films which are damning but on the other hand he meticulously researches a lot of the material and quite often people with their own political axe to grind who dis him in various websites and articles end up being countered successfully.
But this is nitpicking.
Regardless of your political affiliation the film raises serious questions about Bush's handling of 9/11 and, dare I say it, the war in Iraq. Almost everybody in this string has ignored this topic raised by the film, and I'm not sure if it's because people are afraid to discuss it and/or opening up a heated debate.
Yes, Michael edits and spins things to get his message across but this in itself is neither unique or incriminating. One of the most important points, I think, raised by this film is that, rather than specifically target Osama and bring the full power of the American military to bear on the man responsible for 9/11, Bush invades Iraq on the flimsiest of evidence of WMD and Iraqi threat to the US, against the known intelligince by non-civilian military and CIA, as well as former weapons inspectors. He broke with and violated international conventions on war, including his own constitution. These are serious charges and have been given greater credibility in the months following the invasion as both Republican and Democrat officials have stated that the intelligence used to invade Iraq was rubbish. Had their been credible evidence of a genuine Iraqi threat, as there was leading up Operation Desert Storm, there would not have been such an uproar among many Americans and other countries.
How do people feel about that? As a Canadian I'm a bit more removed but many Americans feel they've been thrown into another unjustified war that need not have been fought (one of the many protest groups is a Vietnam vets against the war organization).
Respectfully,
Mark
But this is nitpicking.
Regardless of your political affiliation the film raises serious questions about Bush's handling of 9/11 and, dare I say it, the war in Iraq. Almost everybody in this string has ignored this topic raised by the film, and I'm not sure if it's because people are afraid to discuss it and/or opening up a heated debate.
Yes, Michael edits and spins things to get his message across but this in itself is neither unique or incriminating. One of the most important points, I think, raised by this film is that, rather than specifically target Osama and bring the full power of the American military to bear on the man responsible for 9/11, Bush invades Iraq on the flimsiest of evidence of WMD and Iraqi threat to the US, against the known intelligince by non-civilian military and CIA, as well as former weapons inspectors. He broke with and violated international conventions on war, including his own constitution. These are serious charges and have been given greater credibility in the months following the invasion as both Republican and Democrat officials have stated that the intelligence used to invade Iraq was rubbish. Had their been credible evidence of a genuine Iraqi threat, as there was leading up Operation Desert Storm, there would not have been such an uproar among many Americans and other countries.
How do people feel about that? As a Canadian I'm a bit more removed but many Americans feel they've been thrown into another unjustified war that need not have been fought (one of the many protest groups is a Vietnam vets against the war organization).
Respectfully,
Mark
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
pshaw wrote...
Thanks for your post; it explains a lot. Class warfare is neither noble nor enlightening.
And I'm willing to bet blue-jeans-clad Michael Moore's bank balance has many more digits in it than my own. Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
Michael
Good post.
You wrote...
In case you hadn't noticed, Afghanistan's Taliban regime is gone. The al Qaeda training camps there are gone. Al Qaeda command and control is gone.
Bin Laden isn't captured yet, and he may never be captured. He's likely in one of the thousands of caves in the mountainous region between Afghanistand and Pakistan, an area ruled by local tribes. If he could have been found that easily, he already would have been found.
Throwing more troops in Afghanistan will not find him any faster. We don't know the language in the region where he is likely hiding. We don't know the culture. We don't have permission to go on into Pakistan to follow the trail there, although the Pakistani army is hunting on their side of the border.
But even if we killed Bin Laden today, it wouldn't make any difference. He is irrelevant. What he has done - trained thousands and sent them around the world - is not. The cause has lost central control, so we won't be seeing spectacular attacks like we saw on 9/11. But more force will likely just pi$$ more people off, and generate more terrorists. Not very smart.
But this is a detail Moore conveniently ignores.
Saddam was toying with the U.N. He violated resolution after resolution. His goal was to prove the U.N. irrelevant. Indeed he succeeded there.
Why did Saddam lie to inspectors and hide evidence about the "destrution" (or lack thereof) of known WMD weapons stockpiles, putting his own people in jeopardy? Your guess is as good as mine.
The whole constitution thing is a process, Mike. It took until yesterday for the Supreme Court to decide on many of these issues. You can't violate laws that haven't been properly interpreted in the court system. The whole al Qaeda terrorist thing - an enemy without a country - created unexplored areas in both the Geneva Convention (international law) as well as domestic law and policy. Such things are still being worked out in all the court systems.
Abu Ghraib is a case where there were some clear violations. Every complex campaign with hundreds of thousands of people involved will have improprieties. The probability that there will not be any is zero. Just take a look at any city in the world today with 100,000 people, and see if you can find a single day where no laws were broken. So when someone in a city violates the law, does that make the mayor a criminal?
Our tolerance for risk changed after 9/11.
Furthermore, folks conveniently forget about all that happened between the end of Desert Storm and the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. British and American forces needed to create "no fly zones" to protect the Kurds and the Shia. This was done with U.N. approval. Saddam routinely targeted and shot at these planes. Repeatedly!
Uncle Saddam was also OPENLY funding families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Paying to kill civilians? Nice guy!
Do you or anyone else honestly think Saddam would have been content to sit back and enjoy being a world citizen and leader of the Iraqi people? It's a fair question. Nobody will know the answer.
But the tolerance for inaction and being wrong changed in this country on a single day. There was plenty of reason, from past WMD experience, to believe Saddam could have and would have directly or indirectly made some serious mischief. And he already was repeatedly in violation of international law - refusing to comply with countless "last chance" UN resolutions.
Proving we did any good is futile. It's like in my business when employers want to see the ROI on a disease management company. And they want you to do it without the benefit of a control group. So...how do you measure something that didn't happen?
Time will tell. Right now we're too close to the horror of war.
Justin
You wrote...
EVERYONE profits when oil is allowed to flow freely into the free market economy. That's part of the job of the president - to protect the economy.
I'm aware that Moore uses comedy in his movies. However he classifies his movie as a documentary, and not as comedy.
It's like Carlos Castaneda (Teachings of Don Juan) calling his work anthropology. It's compelling reading, for sure. But it's not a documentary, nor is it a biography.
- Bill
Is there something wrong with being rich? Is it illegal? Socially unacceptable? Morally reprehensible? Un-American?Without a doubt it is Michael's cheekiest, gutsiest, most hilarious assault yet on the halls of the rich and richer.
Thanks for your post; it explains a lot. Class warfare is neither noble nor enlightening.
And I'm willing to bet blue-jeans-clad Michael Moore's bank balance has many more digits in it than my own. Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
Michael
Good post.
You wrote...
Whoa... Let's start here.One of the most important points, I think, raised by this film is that, rather than specifically target Osama and bring the full power of the American military to bear on the man responsible for 9/11,
In case you hadn't noticed, Afghanistan's Taliban regime is gone. The al Qaeda training camps there are gone. Al Qaeda command and control is gone.
Bin Laden isn't captured yet, and he may never be captured. He's likely in one of the thousands of caves in the mountainous region between Afghanistand and Pakistan, an area ruled by local tribes. If he could have been found that easily, he already would have been found.
Throwing more troops in Afghanistan will not find him any faster. We don't know the language in the region where he is likely hiding. We don't know the culture. We don't have permission to go on into Pakistan to follow the trail there, although the Pakistani army is hunting on their side of the border.
But even if we killed Bin Laden today, it wouldn't make any difference. He is irrelevant. What he has done - trained thousands and sent them around the world - is not. The cause has lost central control, so we won't be seeing spectacular attacks like we saw on 9/11. But more force will likely just pi$$ more people off, and generate more terrorists. Not very smart.
But this is a detail Moore conveniently ignores.
EVERYONE had this intelligence before the invasion. EVERYONE thought he was in possession of WMD stockpiles. Even Saddam himself thought it. Turns out his own weapons manufacturers were lieing to him in order to keep from being slaughtered.Bush invades Iraq on the flimsiest of evidence of WMD and Iraqi threat to the US, against the known intelligince by non-civilian military and CIA, as well as former weapons inspectors.
Saddam was toying with the U.N. He violated resolution after resolution. His goal was to prove the U.N. irrelevant. Indeed he succeeded there.
Why did Saddam lie to inspectors and hide evidence about the "destrution" (or lack thereof) of known WMD weapons stockpiles, putting his own people in jeopardy? Your guess is as good as mine.
Has "he" been convicted of such? Those are pretty broad charges.He broke with and violated international conventions on war, including his own constitution.
The whole constitution thing is a process, Mike. It took until yesterday for the Supreme Court to decide on many of these issues. You can't violate laws that haven't been properly interpreted in the court system. The whole al Qaeda terrorist thing - an enemy without a country - created unexplored areas in both the Geneva Convention (international law) as well as domestic law and policy. Such things are still being worked out in all the court systems.
Abu Ghraib is a case where there were some clear violations. Every complex campaign with hundreds of thousands of people involved will have improprieties. The probability that there will not be any is zero. Just take a look at any city in the world today with 100,000 people, and see if you can find a single day where no laws were broken. So when someone in a city violates the law, does that make the mayor a criminal?
First, both the Democrats and the Republicans as well as the French and Germans will tell you that they were operating with the same rubbish intelligence. Nobody knew this until after the fact. It *****, but 20/20 hindsight is a little convenient. Congress had already given Bush permission to invade Iraq. What does that tell you about the foresight?These are serious charges and have been given greater credibility in the months following the invasion as both Republican and Democrat officials have stated that the intelligence used to invade Iraq was rubbish.
This preemptive strike business is new territory. It exists only because we (the United States) were attacked first. Our center of commerce was attacked. Our military command and control was attacked. Had a 4th plane not been brought down by some brave passengers, our center of government would also have been attacked. And the vast majority of people killed were civilians - from all over the world.Had their been credible evidence of a genuine Iraqi threat, as there was leading up Operation Desert Storm, there would not have been such an uproar among many Americans and other countries.
Our tolerance for risk changed after 9/11.
Furthermore, folks conveniently forget about all that happened between the end of Desert Storm and the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. British and American forces needed to create "no fly zones" to protect the Kurds and the Shia. This was done with U.N. approval. Saddam routinely targeted and shot at these planes. Repeatedly!
Uncle Saddam was also OPENLY funding families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Paying to kill civilians? Nice guy!
Do you or anyone else honestly think Saddam would have been content to sit back and enjoy being a world citizen and leader of the Iraqi people? It's a fair question. Nobody will know the answer.
But the tolerance for inaction and being wrong changed in this country on a single day. There was plenty of reason, from past WMD experience, to believe Saddam could have and would have directly or indirectly made some serious mischief. And he already was repeatedly in violation of international law - refusing to comply with countless "last chance" UN resolutions.
Proving we did any good is futile. It's like in my business when employers want to see the ROI on a disease management company. And they want you to do it without the benefit of a control group. So...how do you measure something that didn't happen?
The country is pretty much split 50/50. On a good day, Bush gets the vote. On a bad day, he gets thumbs down.How do people feel about that? As a Canadian I'm a bit more removed but many Americans feel they've been thrown into another unjustified war that need not have been fought (one of the many protest groups is a Vietnam vets against the war organization).
Time will tell. Right now we're too close to the horror of war.
Justin
You wrote...
Please tell the government. Again...last I checked, Bush and Cheney divested themselves of their oil company stocks and business. I'm waiting for someone to show me otherwise.The conflict of interest with the Saudis and the extent to which the Bush family and Cheney directly benefit financially from going to war is eye-opening.
EVERYONE profits when oil is allowed to flow freely into the free market economy. That's part of the job of the president - to protect the economy.
I'm aware that Moore uses comedy in his movies. However he classifies his movie as a documentary, and not as comedy.
It's like Carlos Castaneda (Teachings of Don Juan) calling his work anthropology. It's compelling reading, for sure. But it's not a documentary, nor is it a biography.
- Bill
Politics sure is interesting...
There are plenty of reasons to be upset with "Dubya"...
But that doesn't mean giving Moore or his ilk a free pass either... which is what many on the left want to do. I find it interesting that the ultra-left-wing media, hollywierd, and politicos are considered "mainstream", but call them on their distortions and you're immediately labeled part of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy"... Since I'm not a Republicrat, I guess that makes me "half-vast".
Regardless, calling Moore what he truly is will always be relevant. Sure his father was a factory worker, but he was hardly poor. I'm a pasty white American male, but I'm not ashamed of who I am nor do I feel the need to atone for it. Calling a movie what it actually IS can be justified... calling it a cake is silly. Moore's psychic ability comes into play regarding Kim Jong Il because he made similar remarks about Saddam and has made similar "kumbaya" remarks about other dictators, terrorists and sponsors of terrorism. Some folks may think that Moore's films are "entertainment", but the vast majority of them believe... are CONVINCED that every single nuance is completely accurate. That's despicable because Moore plays to the ability to "get away with" distorting the truth to the vast majority of film goers.
On the current policial situation, people need only be cognizant of "the Lizard speech" to realize the truth of the situation.
However, it is interesting to note that those who are so quick to bash Bush, and claim some form of moral superiority in doing so, were silent for the previous EIGHT years while the Philanderer in Heat missed over a dozen documented opportunities to take out Osama and cripple Al Qaeda... With the exception being the "wag the dog" bombing of an aspirin factory.
But that doesn't mean giving Moore or his ilk a free pass either... which is what many on the left want to do. I find it interesting that the ultra-left-wing media, hollywierd, and politicos are considered "mainstream", but call them on their distortions and you're immediately labeled part of Hillary's "vast right-wing conspiracy"... Since I'm not a Republicrat, I guess that makes me "half-vast".
Regardless, calling Moore what he truly is will always be relevant. Sure his father was a factory worker, but he was hardly poor. I'm a pasty white American male, but I'm not ashamed of who I am nor do I feel the need to atone for it. Calling a movie what it actually IS can be justified... calling it a cake is silly. Moore's psychic ability comes into play regarding Kim Jong Il because he made similar remarks about Saddam and has made similar "kumbaya" remarks about other dictators, terrorists and sponsors of terrorism. Some folks may think that Moore's films are "entertainment", but the vast majority of them believe... are CONVINCED that every single nuance is completely accurate. That's despicable because Moore plays to the ability to "get away with" distorting the truth to the vast majority of film goers.
On the current policial situation, people need only be cognizant of "the Lizard speech" to realize the truth of the situation.
However, it is interesting to note that those who are so quick to bash Bush, and claim some form of moral superiority in doing so, were silent for the previous EIGHT years while the Philanderer in Heat missed over a dozen documented opportunities to take out Osama and cripple Al Qaeda... With the exception being the "wag the dog" bombing of an aspirin factory.
==================================
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
My God-given Rights are NOT "void where prohibited by law!"
-
Mark Weitz
- Posts: 397
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 4:27 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
Bill, thanks for your thoughtful, detailed response. A lot to consider.
) and this is where Michael Moore made a strong case.
Mark
Yes, the Taliban regime is gone. I believe the US was justified in going into Afghanistan and they and others did good work in weakening the Taliban, though not complete destruction, and centralized command structure. Problem is, their decentralized, as you point out. My point is that it may have been more effective to concentrate US military resources into the region and keep them there. Would this ultimately be the right thing to do? I don't know. My opinion only and I'm no military expert. But more important is that the connection between 9/11 was sketchy at best and did not give Bush Jr. the right to invade.In case you hadn't noticed, Afghanistan's Taliban regime is gone. The al Qaeda training camps there are gone. Al Qaeda command and control is gone.
Bin Laden isn't captured yet, and he may never be captured. He's likely in one of the thousands of caves in the mountainous region between Afghanistand and Pakistan, an area ruled by local tribes. If he could have been found that easily, he already would have been found.
Many countries shared the same intelligence but did not believe it warranted an invasion. And most countries believed that he was all but disarmed of WMD and with no significant means of launching an attack with WMD, assuming he had any that were worth anything. Scott Ritter, a decorated Marine and Republican supporter was quite clear on this point and many in the intelligence community agreed with him. US intelligence, including weapons inspectors from both the UN and the US, as well as the CIA never claimed Iraq was a threat. George Tenet was quoted as saying that Hussein is a threat only if he is "cornered". Also important is the fact that Iraq never threatened the US or has ever launched an attack of aggression on the US. And EVERBODY knew that Iraq had zero ability to attack the US. Even the surrounding Arab league knew it because they published statements that they didn't believe Iraq to be a concern, even locally. He was contained and toothless. This was known. I agree, as Hans Blix has pointed out, that Hussein made noises about having some type of WMD but the intelligence was that he simply had no credible means of delivering it and without a credible connection to 9/11 or Al Queda, it didn't make sense, unless you wanted a reason to invade, to connect him to Osama. BTW, Osama considred Hussein an infidel, a secular Muslim, and vowed to kill him.EVERYONE had this intelligence before the invasion. EVERYONE thought he was in possession of WMD stockpiles. Even Saddam himself thought it. Turns out his own weapons manufacturers were lieing to him in order to keep from being slaughtered.
Yes, I agree, I am making broad charges. And I could be very wrong. However, international law is not as murky as you think. Pre-emptive war is a concept that is well understood in international law. Without credible evidence that a country is preparing to invade, a pre-emptive war becomes a preventive war, which is blatantly illegal and yet became a fundamental concept within the Bush doctrine. The US is a signatory to UN conventions and international treaties that clearly defines pre-emptive war and a war of aggression, the latter being "the supreme war crime"according to the Nuremberg Code. Article 6 of the US Constitution states that international treaties to which the US has signed on are the supreme law of the land. Arguably, Bush violated international law governing war and his own constitution. BTW, I'm not exactly tight with Hussein. He's a devil and the world is much better off without the @#$!#. Still, it was not necessary to bomb the crap out of Bhagdad and send America's brave soldiers to die. Please understand, I believe there are justified times for war and Afghanistan mad sense to me given who was the mastermind of 9/11. Yes, terrorists like Al Qaeda make it necessary to re-assess international law but it doesn't make it necessary to invade a sovereign country that has not been shown to have lifted a finger against the US. Even Colin Powell and Bush himself have had to concede this point, as they have publicly after the fact, when barely a thimblefull of WMD has materialized. The evidence of 9/11 overwhelmingly pointed to Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia; 14-15 of the hijackers were Saudis. The Iraq thing, which Michael Moore points out, was blurred with 9/11 and people were led to believe Hussein was linked to it. I'm in no way suggesting Americans are dupes. I am saying, however, that there was a lot of deception, exageration, misinformation, and mangling of the truth (you can see I'm trying not to be libelousThe whole constitution thing is a process, Mike. It took until yesterday for the Supreme Court to decide on many of these issues. You can't violate laws that haven't been properly interpreted in the court system. The whole al Qaeda terrorist thing - an enemy without a country - created unexplored areas in both the Geneva Convention (international law) as well as domestic law and policy. Such things are still being worked out in all the court systems.
) and this is where Michael Moore made a strong case.Bill, I think you're making too broad a statement here re how the different parties viewed the intelligence. The US and Britain believed the intelligence warranted an attack. The French and the Germans did not and again cited the "rubbish intelligence" as showing that invading was not justified. Almost all the reports from weapons inspectors showed that Hussein was 80-90% disarmed, and if he had anything left his military capable to launch an attack with WMD was practically nil, certainly completely nil against the US without any ballistic capability and no evidence of providing WMD to any terrorists. Hussein certainly provided cash bonuses to Palestinian terrorists but I think the decision to knock his block off on that count would've been better left with the Israelis.First, both the Democrats and the Republicans as well as the French and Germans will tell you that they were operating with the same rubbish intelligence. Nobody knew this until after the fact. It *****, but 20/20 hindsight is a little convenient. Congress had already given Bush permission to invade Iraq. What does that tell you about the foresight?
All good points. However, there was also plenty of evidence that Saddam was incapable of launching an attack on the US. That a person might someday do something is not supportable grounds for war. There has to be good cause. That he was in violation of international law, before and at the time, doesn't justify invasion. Many countries, including the US, Israel, France, Indonesia, even good ol' Canada, have violated international law, either in fact or in spirit, but don't deserve to be bombed or to risk our young people's lives for a possibility. I believe that if Bush hadn't have used 9/11 as a means to whip up fear, anger, and vengeance towards Iraq, Americans would not have been thinking about the Iraqi threat. Al Qaeda was enough of a horror. I think Bush knew this as did many of his advisors and the information that has come out from more than a few senior Republican officials, including Petagon and CIA staff is that they were spoiling for Iraq before 9/11.But the tolerance for inaction and being wrong changed in this country on a single day. There was plenty of reason, from past WMD experience, to believe Saddam could have and would have directly or indirectly made some serious mischief. And he already was repeatedly in violation of international law - refusing to comply with countless "last chance" UN resolutions.
Mark
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
And what happens when that kind of B.S. happens in politics?I am disappointed though that Michael chose intentionally to mislead the public with numerous situations of ommitted facts. A classic example is the legislator he attempts to ridicule by having him sign up his son to go to Iraq. A later interview on NBC has that very legislator telling what he told Moore (his nephew was in fact over there) and got conveniently cut from the film. I don't know about journalism; I am a scientist. In science, that kind of B.S. spells the end of your career - period.
Gene
> Is there something wrong with being rich? Is it illegal? Socially
> unacceptable? Morally reprehensible? Un-American?
No there's nothing wrong with being rich in and of itself. But you know what, I do think there's something wrong with unrestrained greed. There's no better economic system than capitalism I know of, but that doesn't make it perfect. One of its problems is the tendency for wealth and poverty to be self-perpetuating.
Would it be so bad if CEOs who have say, 5 million dollars or more, realized that they don't need any more money and started paying their workers a little more, even if it means not making as much profit?
And remember, there can be things that are American staples that aren't good. Anyone who thinks their country is beyond reproach isn't looking very closely (this is a general point, I know you, Bill, reproach plenty of things).
> And I'm willing to bet blue-jeans-clad Michael Moore's bank balance has many
> more digits in it than my own. Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
Has he ever said it's bad just to be rich? As far as I can tell the only thing he's said is that it's bad to be rich and then screw people as hard as you can for just a little more.
> Throwing more troops in Afghanistan will not find him any faster.
Now? Probably not. But it may have when we first went in. At this point there's no way to tell, of course.
> But more force will likely just pi$$ more people off, and generate more
> terrorists. Not very smart.
But for some reason when this point is brought up with regards to Iraq it's always dismissed out of hand.
> So when someone in a city violates the law, does that make the mayor a
> criminal?
Well, it seems like we'll need to wait and see if the mayor in this case gave approval for those crimes. As the magic 8-ball says, signs point to yes.
> This preemptive strike business is new territory. It exists only because we > (the United States) were attacked first.
> Our tolerance for risk changed after 9/11.
That's not a reasonable excuse. We can't suddenly decide that because we got attacked by someone in the world we should now run rampant over sovereign countries because we perceive a risk. After all, 9/11 is not the first time this country has ever been attacked.
Protecting ourselves from actual imminent threat is reasonable, preemptively striking people for economic benefits on the thin pretense of defending against imagined boogeymen is not.
> Uncle Saddam was also OPENLY funding families of Palestinian suicide > bombers. Paying to kill civilians? Nice guy!
So are the saudis, why aren't we attacking them? Oh yeah, because our leaders have strong ties, financial and social with their elite.
> But the tolerance for inaction and being wrong changed in this country on a > single day. There was plenty of reason, from past WMD experience, to believe > Saddam could have and would have directly or indirectly made some serious > mischief.
What reason was there to believe he could do anything to us? And what about Korea? They have actual clear evidence. But again, this isn't really about WMD, that's just hand waving to distract from the money trail.
> The country is pretty much split 50/50. On a good day, Bush gets the vote. > On a bad day, he gets thumbs down.
That just baffles me. I really can't fathom how anyone can approve of Bush, war or no war. I know people like him, but it boggles the mind. He's such a moron, it's an embarassment.
> Please tell the government. Again...last I checked, Bush and Cheney divested > themselves of their oil company stocks and business. I'm waiting for someone > to show me otherwise.
Th
> EVERYONE profits when oil is allowed to flow freely into the free market > economy. That's part of the job of the president - to protect the economy.
It's the job of the president to try to help the economy. But it's not acceptable to go to war just to protect our financial interests.
Panther says:
> I find it interesting that the ultra-left-wing media,
Out of curiosity, is there such a thing as ultra-super-mega-left wing or something? You're going to run out of amplifying adjectives if you want to describe the range of left-wingededness in this country when the media is already dubbed ultra.
As for the rest of your argumens Clinton did plenty of stupid-ass things. I couldn't care any less who he has sex with, but he signed some trash into law just like everyone else.
And as for who moore is compared to his public persona? I don't care. Just like I don't care that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict who talks about how worthless drug addicts are (though I do disagree with his stance on what to do about drug addiction). It's always fun to jump up and down screaming "Look who he really is" but I don't find it at all relevant to his work. As far as I'm concerned, Moore is playing a character just like every entertainer.
> unacceptable? Morally reprehensible? Un-American?
No there's nothing wrong with being rich in and of itself. But you know what, I do think there's something wrong with unrestrained greed. There's no better economic system than capitalism I know of, but that doesn't make it perfect. One of its problems is the tendency for wealth and poverty to be self-perpetuating.
Would it be so bad if CEOs who have say, 5 million dollars or more, realized that they don't need any more money and started paying their workers a little more, even if it means not making as much profit?
And remember, there can be things that are American staples that aren't good. Anyone who thinks their country is beyond reproach isn't looking very closely (this is a general point, I know you, Bill, reproach plenty of things).
> And I'm willing to bet blue-jeans-clad Michael Moore's bank balance has many
> more digits in it than my own. Pretty hypocritical, don't you think?
Has he ever said it's bad just to be rich? As far as I can tell the only thing he's said is that it's bad to be rich and then screw people as hard as you can for just a little more.
> Throwing more troops in Afghanistan will not find him any faster.
Now? Probably not. But it may have when we first went in. At this point there's no way to tell, of course.
> But more force will likely just pi$$ more people off, and generate more
> terrorists. Not very smart.
But for some reason when this point is brought up with regards to Iraq it's always dismissed out of hand.
> So when someone in a city violates the law, does that make the mayor a
> criminal?
Well, it seems like we'll need to wait and see if the mayor in this case gave approval for those crimes. As the magic 8-ball says, signs point to yes.
> This preemptive strike business is new territory. It exists only because we > (the United States) were attacked first.
> Our tolerance for risk changed after 9/11.
That's not a reasonable excuse. We can't suddenly decide that because we got attacked by someone in the world we should now run rampant over sovereign countries because we perceive a risk. After all, 9/11 is not the first time this country has ever been attacked.
Protecting ourselves from actual imminent threat is reasonable, preemptively striking people for economic benefits on the thin pretense of defending against imagined boogeymen is not.
> Uncle Saddam was also OPENLY funding families of Palestinian suicide > bombers. Paying to kill civilians? Nice guy!
So are the saudis, why aren't we attacking them? Oh yeah, because our leaders have strong ties, financial and social with their elite.
> But the tolerance for inaction and being wrong changed in this country on a > single day. There was plenty of reason, from past WMD experience, to believe > Saddam could have and would have directly or indirectly made some serious > mischief.
What reason was there to believe he could do anything to us? And what about Korea? They have actual clear evidence. But again, this isn't really about WMD, that's just hand waving to distract from the money trail.
> The country is pretty much split 50/50. On a good day, Bush gets the vote. > On a bad day, he gets thumbs down.
That just baffles me. I really can't fathom how anyone can approve of Bush, war or no war. I know people like him, but it boggles the mind. He's such a moron, it's an embarassment.
> Please tell the government. Again...last I checked, Bush and Cheney divested > themselves of their oil company stocks and business. I'm waiting for someone > to show me otherwise.
Th
> EVERYONE profits when oil is allowed to flow freely into the free market > economy. That's part of the job of the president - to protect the economy.
It's the job of the president to try to help the economy. But it's not acceptable to go to war just to protect our financial interests.
Panther says:
> I find it interesting that the ultra-left-wing media,
Out of curiosity, is there such a thing as ultra-super-mega-left wing or something? You're going to run out of amplifying adjectives if you want to describe the range of left-wingededness in this country when the media is already dubbed ultra.
As for the rest of your argumens Clinton did plenty of stupid-ass things. I couldn't care any less who he has sex with, but he signed some trash into law just like everyone else.
And as for who moore is compared to his public persona? I don't care. Just like I don't care that Rush Limbaugh is a drug addict who talks about how worthless drug addicts are (though I do disagree with his stance on what to do about drug addiction). It's always fun to jump up and down screaming "Look who he really is" but I don't find it at all relevant to his work. As far as I'm concerned, Moore is playing a character just like every entertainer.
One of the things we are encountering here is folks haven't seen the movie and are just regurgitating what they hear in the media.
First of all, it is a film. People somehow seem to think the term "documentary" entails an unbiased representation of the fact, that's actually never the case. Just as it's impossible for a scientist to research anything without interfering in some aspect with the thing being studied, it's impossible to present a story without taking SOME side to it. This being said, the film is well done from a style and plot construction point. Moore is scathing towards Bush, yes, but how he achieves this end is perhaps THE most important aspect of the film:
He lets Bush hang himself. Some of the things Bush says, in any context, defy logic and Moore just gives him the air time and let's the message sink in.
First of all, it is a film. People somehow seem to think the term "documentary" entails an unbiased representation of the fact, that's actually never the case. Just as it's impossible for a scientist to research anything without interfering in some aspect with the thing being studied, it's impossible to present a story without taking SOME side to it. This being said, the film is well done from a style and plot construction point. Moore is scathing towards Bush, yes, but how he achieves this end is perhaps THE most important aspect of the film:
He lets Bush hang himself. Some of the things Bush says, in any context, defy logic and Moore just gives him the air time and let's the message sink in.
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
Again...last I checked, Bush and Cheney divested themselves of their oil company stocks and business. I'm waiting for someone to show me otherwise.
Bush and Cheney may have divested themselves of their current interests in Haliburton, Oil, etc. but I think it's a little fantastic to think they won't be able to re-vest themselves in those industries once their term of service is over. They both come from old money. Old money likes to stay in the family.
From the musical Chicago...
Mr. Flynn, his honor is here
BILLY(Spoken)
Thank you. Just a moment.
You ready?
ROXIE(Spoken)
Oh Billy, I'm scared.
BILLY(Spoken)
Roxie, you got nothing to worry about.
It's all a circus, kid. A three ring circus.
These trials- the wholeworld- all show business.
But kid, you're working with a star, the biggest!
(Singing)
Give 'em the old razzle dazzle
Razzle Dazzle 'em
Give 'em an act with lots of flash in it
And the reaction will be passionate
Give 'em the old hocus pocus
Bead and feather 'em
How can they see with sequins in their eyes?
What if your hinges all are rusting?
What if, in fact, you're just disgusting?
Razzle dazzle 'em
And they'll never catch wise!...
And I'm also not saying that Bush and Cheney only went to war for their bank account. That's equally fantastic. The real answer is way complicated (as proven by many threads on this forum.)
I'm so happy Michael Moore made this film. Even though I haven't seen it yet. He's opened up the dialogue - and that, to me, is one of the most important roles of film makers in the world - no matter their genre of choice.
From what I've heard in the business - he's not a nice guy. And he's be rightly labeled a "left-wing propogandist" on this thread. But he sure did cook up a nice little piece of controversial media.
And I'm really tickled that we live in a country where he can make this kind of a movie without being put in jail or being censored. (And - if he's done anything outright libelous or slanderous that will go through due process and the courts will decide).
He may do more to get out the vote in this election than lots of other people and other efforts. And for that - no matter how people vote - I'm grateful. The US has long-needed more ferver and interest to overcome our nearly shameful apathy to politics.
I am having an absolute blast reading this thread.
Dana
Did you show compassion today?
